I think I understand his point, and I agree in part, but I also disagree. I think security awareness is good, but I think relying on it is bad.
First of all, I think there will always be situations where the security technology fails - social engineering is an obvious example - and ultimately the final barrier is the security smarts of the target. Anything which raises that barrier, even a little, is a good thing. The question, obviously, is whether the benefit is worth the cost of the training.
And secondly, I think in general that making people more aware is always good. People are way too trusting, and that covers the gamut from clicking dodgy attachments to falling for Ponzi schemes. I think it's good to teach people to question more, to think critically, and to be risk-aware. And by "teach people" I mean "starting in primary school".
Easy, tiger. That's talking about Samba 4.0. NOT Samba4. Confusing, no? AFAICT: Samba 4.0 includes the Samba 3.x functionality AND the Samba4 work (ie: it's a bundled file/print server and AD controller).
From that page you linked to: "Samba 4.0 will be the next version of the Samba suite and incorporates all the technology found in both the Samba4 series and the stable 3.x series."
Good grief, that's hilarious. Not the article, the comments. I love the whole thread about "lol so your book is wrong and so are everyone else's but it's a fact that the quran is flawless so you must believe its every word".
I love the faithful. They are the source of endless amusement. I'm convinced if they'd just stop and listen to themselves for _one moment_ they'd realise how ridiculous they are.
I don't buy that. The article says they tried it again to confirm it really was standard practice, and managed to get the same access.
So either they got the exact same service agent on the phone, or both the hackers and the journalists managed to isolate the two clueless individuals in the call centre who would defy the established practice, or it was standard insecure practice which Apple will now (we hope) address.
Occam's Razor suggests the last is the more likely scenario.
Yeah, they do. I tried it out, for curiosity's sake. And dear lord, the parser is horrendous. You'll spend 30 seconds figuring out an exercise, and an hour trying to get the damned parser to work. It's like playing an old adventure game. "put the value in the variable". "put the value ON the variable". "use the value with the variable." "oh ffs never mind"
If they could fix that, I'd give it a thumbs up. Until then, god no. It'd put any rational person off programming for life - if that were representative of the coding experience, we'd all be living in padded cells by the age of 22.
Your points are thoughtful and well made, and I agree with you.
But I think what the article meant was that using the same measurement, music from the earlier era is less varied than from contemporary work. In other words, for at least this method of analysis, music is getting measurably less varied over time.
Of course you're right that there will be common sounds in any slice through musical history: that's why we even have the term "genre":) But I think the point is that even taking that into account, older slices show more variation.
Language evolves and drifts, but legal definitions do not.
Theft is a crime with a specific definition. Copyright violation is a different crime, with a different definition. They are both criminal actions, but they are _different_ types of crime. Trying to conflate the two is very successful PR by the media industry, since "theft" has negative connotations that "piracy" does not, but they are not the same.
For reference: try to find an instance of copyright violation which has been prosecuted (successfully or not) as theft. When copyright holders start charging violators with theft, I'll agree that the definition has shifted. Until then, they're not the same and should not be confused.
But then, when the activation fails for a legitimate customer (because it WILL fail at some point), that customer doesn't know that he's paid full rate for a non-functional appliance.
There's not much harm in a "your device appears to be operating in a country on a list of Bad Places. Please call 0800 UNCLE SAM to resolve the problem."
It's not like they're likely to route all their traffic through a proxy in another country to avoid it. That's plausible, but so unwieldy it probably wouldn't be worth the effort. Esp not for a national government.
its = possessive neutral 3rd-person adjective (formal or informal speech) it's = contraction of "it is" (informal speech)
Close, but to be pedantic about it, "its" is a possessive pronoun. Possessive pronouns don't take apostrophes because, well, they're already possessive. And probably jealous too.
So: its, his, hers, etc.
The rule for most people seems to be "if I'm not sure, I'll whack in an apostrophe just in case." Which is fine - not everyone is comfortable with the weird vagaries of formal English. But I do wish it were the opposite: when unsure, leave it out. It would be a lot simpler for everyone, and they'd be correct much more frequently.
Not everyone wants to read 250,000 cables. Journalists do - they're looking for _leads_. They'll find nuggets and draw the audience's attention to them.
Also, journalists know useful things like not taking every source at face value. What looks huge might be overblown, and what looks trivial may be the tip of an iceberg. Journalists try to spot those. And they second- (third-, fourth-) source facts to try to ensure it's really a fact and not just a rumour.
That activity frequently does require protection. Protecting sources, for example, without which many stories would never come to light. So yes, journalism does need special treatment. But maybe not as special as many journalists would like to think (and I say that as one:)
However, journalists aren't perfect. They miss things, or gloss over things. So in many cases the source material should always be available, but that's not the role of the journalist. Let them find the stories for you, but if you want to wade through the mass of data, knock yourself out.
Open information keeps governments AND journalists honest.
Do you think it's fair to force non-smoking employees (including, potentially, external contractors like facility-hired security and cleaners) to breathe second-hand smoke? Or to discriminate against non-smokers by refusing to hire them?
That's not logical, nor necessarily true. Just because _you_ don't know about research, doesn't mean it's not being put to use in a way that may benefit you. An awful lot of research at places like GCHQ and the NSA is conducted out of sight of the communities it is intended to protect.
You don't, after all, need to know the research behind a secure government communications channel, but you may well benefit (even unknowingly) from having a government that is less vulnerable to espionage.
At least, that's the thinking - the spirit of modern cryptography suggests that a solid crypto scheme is no weaker for being published. But hey, making it that little bit harder doesn't hurt.
In South Africa there's RICA - the Regulation of Interception of Communications Act - that requires cellphone users to register every SIM card with all their details, including proof of ID and residence, before the end of the year (IIRC) or be cut off.
The likelihood of reducing crime versus feeding a booming black market for SIMs is left as an exercise for the reader.
It's standard marketing bullshit. Every time you see "up to" in an ad, replace it with "less than". "Up to 10mbps", "up to 80% shinier hair", "up to whatever". If one out of the entire sample/customer base experienced an anomalous outlier result, they will claim "up to" that. You're statistically unlikely to be the anomalous outlier, therefore you will experience less than what they're claiming.
"Less than" is more accurate anyway. What you experience may be anything in a wide range of values below that, but you KNOW you won't experience more. So do the mental substitution, and I promise your perception of advertising will change as a result.
Slashdot Mirror
If nothing else, he certainly would have had contractual terms forbidding it.
I think I understand his point, and I agree in part, but I also disagree. I think security awareness is good, but I think relying on it is bad.
First of all, I think there will always be situations where the security technology fails - social engineering is an obvious example - and ultimately the final barrier is the security smarts of the target. Anything which raises that barrier, even a little, is a good thing. The question, obviously, is whether the benefit is worth the cost of the training.
And secondly, I think in general that making people more aware is always good. People are way too trusting, and that covers the gamut from clicking dodgy attachments to falling for Ponzi schemes. I think it's good to teach people to question more, to think critically, and to be risk-aware. And by "teach people" I mean "starting in primary school".
Let me know when I can sudo apt-get install a toolkit to run Android apps on a major desktop Linux distribution.
sudo apt-get install eclipse - the SDK includes an emulator.
Easy, tiger. That's talking about Samba 4.0. NOT Samba4. Confusing, no? AFAICT: Samba 4.0 includes the Samba 3.x functionality AND the Samba4 work (ie: it's a bundled file/print server and AD controller).
From that page you linked to: "Samba 4.0 will be the next version of the Samba suite and incorporates all the technology found in both the Samba4 series and the stable 3.x series."
30 seconds on Google turned up this article
Good grief, that's hilarious. Not the article, the comments. I love the whole thread about "lol so your book is wrong and so are everyone else's but it's a fact that the quran is flawless so you must believe its every word".
I love the faithful. They are the source of endless amusement. I'm convinced if they'd just stop and listen to themselves for _one moment_ they'd realise how ridiculous they are.
The evidence is outlined in the freely available "Against Intellectual Monopoly".
http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm
I don't buy that. The article says they tried it again to confirm it really was standard practice, and managed to get the same access.
So either they got the exact same service agent on the phone, or both the hackers and the journalists managed to isolate the two clueless individuals in the call centre who would defy the established practice, or it was standard insecure practice which Apple will now (we hope) address.
Occam's Razor suggests the last is the more likely scenario.
Yeah, they do. I tried it out, for curiosity's sake. And dear lord, the parser is horrendous. You'll spend 30 seconds figuring out an exercise, and an hour trying to get the damned parser to work. It's like playing an old adventure game. "put the value in the variable". "put the value ON the variable". "use the value with the variable." "oh ffs never mind"
If they could fix that, I'd give it a thumbs up. Until then, god no. It'd put any rational person off programming for life - if that were representative of the coding experience, we'd all be living in padded cells by the age of 22.
Darfur. The huge mess down there is being exasperated*
*exacerbated?
Your points are thoughtful and well made, and I agree with you.
But I think what the article meant was that using the same measurement, music from the earlier era is less varied than from contemporary work. In other words, for at least this method of analysis, music is getting measurably less varied over time.
Of course you're right that there will be common sounds in any slice through musical history: that's why we even have the term "genre" :) But I think the point is that even taking that into account, older slices show more variation.
So the vuvuzelas at the World Cup were just ahead of their time, eh? :)
ya, that's why free Linux has replaced expensive Windows everywhere
Just so. You're referring to Android's market share, I take it?
Language evolves and drifts, but legal definitions do not.
Theft is a crime with a specific definition. Copyright violation is a different crime, with a different definition. They are both criminal actions, but they are _different_ types of crime. Trying to conflate the two is very successful PR by the media industry, since "theft" has negative connotations that "piracy" does not, but they are not the same.
For reference: try to find an instance of copyright violation which has been prosecuted (successfully or not) as theft. When copyright holders start charging violators with theft, I'll agree that the definition has shifted. Until then, they're not the same and should not be confused.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Dome_raid
But then, when the activation fails for a legitimate customer (because it WILL fail at some point), that customer doesn't know that he's paid full rate for a non-functional appliance.
There's not much harm in a "your device appears to be operating in a country on a list of Bad Places. Please call 0800 UNCLE SAM to resolve the problem."
It's not like they're likely to route all their traffic through a proxy in another country to avoid it. That's plausible, but so unwieldy it probably wouldn't be worth the effort. Esp not for a national government.
OMG. How did I not know about this? Want!
Agreed. Note however:
its = possessive neutral 3rd-person adjective (formal or informal speech)
it's = contraction of "it is" (informal speech)
Close, but to be pedantic about it, "its" is a possessive pronoun. Possessive pronouns don't take apostrophes because, well, they're already possessive. And probably jealous too.
So: its, his, hers, etc.
The rule for most people seems to be "if I'm not sure, I'll whack in an apostrophe just in case." Which is fine - not everyone is comfortable with the weird vagaries of formal English. But I do wish it were the opposite: when unsure, leave it out. It would be a lot simpler for everyone, and they'd be correct much more frequently.
Er, no. "The press" is a group term for the media industry. The Constitution isn't talking about a singular printing device.
Sheesh.
Journalists add context.
Not everyone wants to read 250,000 cables. Journalists do - they're looking for _leads_. They'll find nuggets and draw the audience's attention to them.
Also, journalists know useful things like not taking every source at face value. What looks huge might be overblown, and what looks trivial may be the tip of an iceberg. Journalists try to spot those. And they second- (third-, fourth-) source facts to try to ensure it's really a fact and not just a rumour.
That activity frequently does require protection. Protecting sources, for example, without which many stories would never come to light. So yes, journalism does need special treatment. But maybe not as special as many journalists would like to think (and I say that as one :)
However, journalists aren't perfect. They miss things, or gloss over things. So in many cases the source material should always be available, but that's not the role of the journalist. Let them find the stories for you, but if you want to wade through the mass of data, knock yourself out.
Open information keeps governments AND journalists honest.
Keep your print preview. Give me a master password already, damnit.
Do you think it's fair to force non-smoking employees (including, potentially, external contractors like facility-hired security and cleaners) to breathe second-hand smoke? Or to discriminate against non-smokers by refusing to hire them?
That's what you think. Just because you haven't found the GPS device on your car doesn't mean no one's watching. They might just be less incompetent.
Or not - maybe you're above suspicion. But I wouldn't put money on it.
That's not logical, nor necessarily true. Just because _you_ don't know about research, doesn't mean it's not being put to use in a way that may benefit you. An awful lot of research at places like GCHQ and the NSA is conducted out of sight of the communities it is intended to protect.
You don't, after all, need to know the research behind a secure government communications channel, but you may well benefit (even unknowingly) from having a government that is less vulnerable to espionage.
At least, that's the thinking - the spirit of modern cryptography suggests that a solid crypto scheme is no weaker for being published. But hey, making it that little bit harder doesn't hurt.
In South Africa there's RICA - the Regulation of Interception of Communications Act - that requires cellphone users to register every SIM card with all their details, including proof of ID and residence, before the end of the year (IIRC) or be cut off.
The likelihood of reducing crime versus feeding a booming black market for SIMs is left as an exercise for the reader.
It's standard marketing bullshit. Every time you see "up to" in an ad, replace it with "less than". "Up to 10mbps", "up to 80% shinier hair", "up to whatever". If one out of the entire sample/customer base experienced an anomalous outlier result, they will claim "up to" that. You're statistically unlikely to be the anomalous outlier, therefore you will experience less than what they're claiming.
"Less than" is more accurate anyway. What you experience may be anything in a wide range of values below that, but you KNOW you won't experience more. So do the mental substitution, and I promise your perception of advertising will change as a result.